FIRs quashed, pan-India compensation policy directed: Inside Supreme Court’s NEET-UG 2026 Protest order
Supreme Court Quashes FIRs, Invokes Article 142 and Directs Pan-India Compensation for Students’ Families in NEET-UG 2026 Protests
Supreme Court Quashes FIRs, Invokes Article 142 and Directs Pan-India Compensation for Students’ Families in NEET-UG 2026 Protests
The HPEC which is to be headed by Justice Subhash Reddy, former Judge, Supreme Court of India, was requested to consider issues highlighted by the parties and to prioritise investigation into alleged harassment, and molestation of female protestors.
From a fake AI-generated precedent that voided an insolvency order to a stray bull attack that reshaped animal-welfare law, July 2026 was one of the Supreme Court’s most consequential months. Explore 30+ rulings spanning constitutional law, criminal justice, technology, and human rights, plus the appointments, transfers, and numbers behind the month’s docket.
Supreme Court clarified that “criminal antecedents” in its NEET 2026 protest order refers only to “grave and heinous offences” and held that NCT of Delhi and other States are at liberty to decide closure or withdrawal of FIRs in accordance with law.
The Court directed that all CCTV footage, drone footage, body-worn camera recordings, videography, wireless communication records, and PCR lodge collections related to the students’ protest be preserved.
PIL before the Supreme Court seeks directions to the Centre and States to formulate a uniform investigation framework for paper leak cases, ensure time-bound probes and speedy trials, confiscate proceeds of crime, and reconsider the prohibition on deception detection techniques in light of advances in forensic science and Kathi Kalu Oghad
The protest stemmed from systemic examination irregularities surrounding national-level exams, most notably recent NEET-UG medical entrance exam paper leak.
With 2.2 million candidates appearing in the re-examination and unlawful channels reappearing within minutes of every takedown, the Court held that narrower measures had been exhausted and that Telegram’s own CEO’s public admission of “backdating scams” and “hundreds of removed channels” constituted a concession that rendered the platform-wide block legally sustainable.
“If the breach of the exam’s sanctity is widespread and if it is not possible to segregate tainted and untainted candidates, a retest may be ordered, but if beneficiaries are identified and limited, then a retest won’t be needed”